Prohashing Mining Pool Forums

Here's today's status:

• We spent the entire weekend resolving bugs and issues. I believe we made significant progress, especially in the number of exceptions generated by the mining server.
• There are also a series of changes to the website that are waiting for Chris to take action and release them. They resolve some annoying issues.
• We deleted a number of indexes on a lot of tables in the database, significantly reducing the number of writes. We also disabled some constraints and eliminated some triggers.
• Even though we will be spending almost all our effort during the next month solely resolving bugs, I'm not going to list every resolved issue here (unless someone requests it). Since resolved issues usually don't result in new features, and we are resolving so many issues, it would be a huge drain of time to list everything here.
• Our major issues continue to be system performance. In our continuing quest to improve performance and in direct response to rootdude's suggestions, Chris was moving daemons off the database hypervisor to two new systems. Chris discovered yesterday when he attempted to move the blockchains for some daemons to the new server that he could only sustain a transfer rate off the old disks of 1MBps. Transferring 0.5T of data to these new servers would have taken too long, so he instead is allowing the blockchains to re-download over the Internet, which will be faster and result in less reads to the old server.
• By the end of the day, Chris should have 71 daemons moved from the first server over to the secondary daemon servers. Our goal is to get about 130 daemons (2/3 of them) to the new servers, so that 1/3 of the daemons are distributed on each of the two new servers and the virtual machine on the original server, and then reevaluate performance.
• The recent mining issues appear to be related to poor performance. There are two problems. The first is that there is an inefficient program that notifies the mining server when a new block is received. This program is instantiated every time a block is received, and then it establishes a new connection to the mining server, sends a few bytes, disconnects, and cleans up. We can make this more efficient by having a single program hold a single connection.
• The other issue is that some daemons do not notify the mining server when new blocks are available, so we need to poll them. The polling occurs every few seconds. However, the daemon server gets overloaded easily because the disks are constantly thrashing, so these calls back up, and they eventually back up the non-polled block notifications. The daemons start using more and more disk reads, which then makes the database unable to perform reads, and the system slows down and share submissions slowly reduce over time. The solution to this problem would appear to first, redesign that program to use far fewer resources when a new block is found, and second, as rootdude suggested, move what we can to the other daemon servers to reduce disk load on the main server. Hopefully, this will be completed over the next few days.
• In the end, I think that a lesson to be learned here is that it is extremely easy to write software. You can even get difficult things like figuring out multiple merge mining working relatively quickly. But it is surprising that the hardware to run the software that we wrote, even after significant optimization, is so expensive. We could find ourselves in a situation where we have to reduce profitability to get the system to run until we have enough money to buy hardware, but reduced profitability would restrict the pool's growth to earn the money to buy the necessary hardware. That would be a strange situation.

This is really great news and I'm sure that you guys are on the right track moving those daemons.

Kudos all around!

BTW - if anyone is interested in a good backup pool to be mining while the growing pains are ironed out here, I'd suggest coinotron and make sure you select PPS for your workers (not PPLNS). LTC continues to consistently rise right now in view of the halvening, and mining straight LTC as a backup can give you a nice cache of LTC to trade closer to the deadline.

Why PPS? Since it's your backup pool to prohashing, your rigs will fail over from time to time when prohashing is having performance issues. Every minute you are at the backup, you are getting coins, rather than being paid only once a block is found. This way, you are paid synchronously for the time your rig spends there.

Thanks. What is your opinion of Ghash's LTC pool? Or their multipool, for that matter?

I'm curious about the answer to kires's question, as we want to find out the advantages and disadvantages of these other pools so that we can improve upon them.

I also want to hear if the change made about an hour ago improved things or had no effect if someone is willing to comment on that.

It looks like whatever you did brought the joy. I've had no failovers since then.

Interesting - thanks.

I don't know how this was missed for so long. I'll have to have Chris do a comprehensive review of all the configuration values. Over time we've added 120 different parameters, and some haven't been changed in a year.

Apparently, this one (how often daemons are polled for new blocks) was causing getblocktemplate to be called 4100 times per minute, 90% of which was unnecessary. getblocktemplate is an extremely expensive operation. Now, it's only calling 400 getblocktemplates per minute, with performance being far improved.

kires wrote:Thanks. What is your opinion of Ghash's LTC pool? Or their multipool, for that matter?

My experience with GHASHs multi is that there are some features I find cool, and operationally it's completely deficient:

Good
Realtime stats on coins
Opt in or out of certain coins
Payout in BTC, LTC, DOGE, AUR
Great hashrate stats
No fees

Bad/Ugly
All coins are old, unsupported or just plain broken (orphans on many are exceedingly high)
Zero support

Their LTC pool is as good as any other pool with the equivalent hashrate. Very reliable. The most important thing, is that it's profitable, though you much trade your own coins.

Steve Sokolowski wrote:Interesting - thanks.

I don't know how this was missed for so long. I'll have to have Chris do a comprehensive review of all the configuration values. Over time we've added 120 different parameters, and some haven't been changed in a year.

Apparently, this one (how often daemons are polled for new blocks) was causing getblocktemplate to be called 4100 times per minute, 90% of which was unnecessary. getblocktemplate is an extremely expensive operation. Now, it's only calling 400 getblocktemplates per minute, with performance being far improved.

I'm still half in/half out. My rigs keep failing over... I'll keep an eye on them tonight...

My rigs constantly switch over to backup pools as well.